Over the last five years, the Excluded Lives team has been examining the patterns and processes of school exclusions across the UK in order to identify those factors which may exacerbate or reduce exclusions. One of most the striking aspects is the contrasting accounts of the causes of exclusion provided by professionals and pupils. Drawing on interview data from 29 school-based professionals and 16 excluded pupils in Wales, the paper analyses the different discourses which underpin their respective narratives. Professional accounts draw on discourses of vulnerability -- seeing their pupils' behaviour as symptomatic of some underlying malaise, typically as victims of adverse socio-economic and familial circumstances. Pupils' accounts, on the other hand, are not about underlying 'causes', but about the specific circumstances of the 'offence'. In their accounts, they are neither vulnerable nor victims. Indeed, they present their actions as rational -- sometimes even heroic -- responses to their situation. In drawing out this contrast, the paper does not seek to privilege one type of narrative over another -- for both contain 'truths'. However, it concludes that the hierarchy of credibility might need to be rebalanced in favour of the pupil if pupil-professional dialogue is to progress and trust be fostered.